Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimcastor/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Both PinkSlippers and Fancypants786 have a pattern of making a large number of similar minor edits to a single article in rapid succession. For example, Fancypants786 at History of Greece on 12 January 2021, and PinkSlippers at Knight Rider (season 1) on 12 September 2021.

PinkSlipper started editing on, and in the next two months made almost a thousand edits. In this time Jimcastor was largely inactive, having stopped editing a, with an edit on Knight Rider (season 1) that was identical to PinkSlippers later edits. During this period, Jimcastor's only activity was an edit at on 12 September, that was identical to the edits that PinkSlippers was making at seasons 1, 2, and 3 on the same day, as well as a few comments to Talk:Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award/Archive 1. Less than an hour later PinkSlippers also, in their first talk page contribution.

Fancypants786 has similar behaviour; they start editing on, starting a few hours after makes an edit. Jimcastor then becomes largely inactive, in this case making just a few edits to Star Trek articles, while Fancypants786 makes several hundred edits. Fancypants786 makes their on 11 February, and a few hours later Jimcastor. A month later Fancypants786 returns, to, two days after Jimcastor.

This pattern of returning from inactivity to participate together in discussions related to Michael Jackson is quite common for them. For example, all three participated in a discussion at Michael Jackson; prior to this, Jimcastor had been inactive for a month, Pinkslipper for five months, and Fancypants786 for a month.

At the ANI thread that prompted this report, Fancypant786 claims that I have made my position clear in the past, assumedly in reference to the canvassing concerns. They haven't, but has, and  also participated in that discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there is meatpuppetry involved in the broader situation; in particular, I believe that Jimcastor is a meatpuppet of TruthGuardians, or at least covertly canvassed, and I haven't looked into the other editors. However, I also think PinkSlippers and Fancypants786 are sockpuppets of Jimcastor; the switches in activity are too clean for them to be meat puppets. In addition, there are a few slip ups that suggest Jimcastor forgot what account they were using; his edit at, which was one of his few edits in that period and identical to the many edits that PinkSlippers was doing that day, and Fancypants786's comment at ANI where they claimed they had made their position clear in the past - Fancypants786 had not, but PinkSlippers and Jimcastor had. BilledMammal (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To complicate this, there is another account, Kaotoshi. Like the other three, they have an interest in Michael Jackson, including, and they made . In addition, both Kaotoshi and Jimcastor have edited List of Bonanza episodes, and they are both interesting in Star Trek, with all of Kaotoshi's edits on those articles adding wikilinks, and many of Jimcastors doing the same. However, at the same time , which makes it unlikely that they are both the same person; I don't know what is happening here, but I struggle to believe that this is all due to coincidence. BilledMammal (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To add to the behavioural evidence, there is a considerable overlap in participation in formal discussions.
 * Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Michael Jackson (2nd nomination) - Jimcastor participated after being inactive for four weeks, Fancypants786 participated after being inactive for six weeks.
 * Talk:Michael_Jackson_Video_Vanguard_Award/Archive_1 - Jimcastor participated after being inactive for two weeks, Pinkslippers participated
 * Talk:Janet_Jackson - Jimcastor participated after being inactive for two weeks, Fancypants786 participated
 * Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_38 - Jimcastor participated after being inactive for six weeks, Fancypants786 participated after being inactive for six weeks, PinkSlippers participated after being inactive for five months
 * Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_38 - Jimcastor participated, Pinkslippers participated after being inactive for two weeks, Fancypants786 participated after being inactive for two weeks
 * Talk:1993_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson - Pinkslippers participated after being inactive for a month, Jimcastor participated a month later.
 * Talk:MJ_the_Musical - Jimcastor participated after being inactive for two months, Pinkslippers participated after being inactive for seven months
 * Talk:List_of_best-selling_albums - Jimcastor participated, Pinkslippers participated, Fancypants786 participated after being inactive for five months.
 * One of these, Talk:1993_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson, is less convincing than the others, considering the time delay and that it wasn't a formal discussion. It is also relevant to note that there was a discussion that one of Pinkslippers and Fancypants786 participated in but Jimcastor did not, at Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists/Archive_42, but it feels like there are too many coincidences here for this to be innocently explained.
 * There is also further similarities in behaviour, though I believe they are weaker evidence:
 * , Square One: Michael Jackson, that Jimcastor was previously heavily involved in editing the article on.
 * and both use the edit summary "Fixed typo" without a space after the section name.
 * and both use the edit summary "Added content" without a space after the section name.
 * occasionally uses a slash to split edit summaries, frequently does so.
 * uses the edit summary "making summary visible";, when making identical edits, uses the edit summary "Making summary visible".

BilledMammal (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * How does any of these prove I am a sockpuppet or any of these accounts are sockpuppets?
 * I have this and only this account.
 * I have no idea about Fancypants786, that username does not even sound familiar to me.
 * I remember PinkSlippers from a previous RFC though so it's quite possible she or he follows my edit history as I do with other editors who edit Jackson related pages. I notified her about your accusations on her talk page. Hope they will
 * respond to you.
 * As for inactivity, I check wiki time to time, check history of other users with the same interest, check RFCs,
 * and if I have time I edit something. Usually I don't.
 * You really can't be surprised that editors interested in Michael Jackson will show up for Michael Jackson related RFCs
 * But if you consider it suspicious that certain editors show up for similar votes, please look into why
 * Harout72 Binksternet Apoxyomenus Bluesatellite and Markus WikiEditor all happened to show up
 * for the Michael Jackson RFC after taking a similar position here regarding Janet Jackson
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Janet_Jackson#How_many_millions_sold?_Revisiting_the_math castorbailey (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The goal here is not always to "prove" one is a sock, but to convince there's enough coincidences to warrant further investigation, and/or a WP:CHECKUSER. Sergecross73   msg me  22:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Will you apologize when it's proven I am not a sockpuppet? You are throwing allegations around without even knowing the full story. Go ahead, check my IP PinkSlippers (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course; I've been incorrectly accused a few times, so if you are not a sock then I know what you are feeling. However, if there is more to the story, then please explain it; in particular, why did you and Jimcastor make identical edits on the Knight Rider season articles, identical edits on the Dallas season articles (PinkSlippers:, ; Jimcastor: ,  - note these are several months apart, unlike the Knight Rider edits), and how did you find the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award requested move? BilledMammal (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've witnessed a number of people express doubt about these accounts. I think it's worth digging into. Sergecross73   msg me  20:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect this is meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry - it has the scent of off-wiki co-ordination - but here's the full list that I looked at in this diff - . Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as CU is able to discern, these accounts are ❌.  Girth Summit  (blether)  08:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything that makes me think these are the same person, and the CU result supports that, so I'm closing this. People get drawn to wikipedia to participate in debates about popular topics from off-wiki forums all the time.  If any of these accounts are being disruptive in other ways, there's always WP:DE. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)